Mumbai Court July 1997 Judgments

Pundurang Barku NaThe Vs. Leela Pandurang NaThe and Another

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1997(3)ALLMR629; 1998(1)BomCR165; 1998BomCR(Cri)1; II(1997)DMC499

ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. By means of this revision application the petitioner has impugned the judgment and order dated 7-10-1992, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, in Criminal Revision Application No. 191 of 1990, whereby the judgment and order dated 23-4-1990 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dindori, dismissing the application of respondent No. 1 for maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C has been reversed and the petitioner has been directed to pay to the respondent No. 1 maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month.2. The facts in brief are :-Respondent No. 1 Leela Pandsurang Nathe, is the wife of the petitioner. The couple had 4 children; the eldest being a son, Rajaram. It is alleged by respondent No. 1 that the petitioner used to ill-treat her. One day the petitioner assaulted respondent No. 1 and drove her out of the house and also demanded divorce from her.In her application for maintenance respondent No. 1 alleged that the petitioner had refused to...

The Ichalkaranji Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Shri Vilas Hanmant A ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(1)BomCR704

ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 19th August, 1987 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kolhapur in I.D.A. Application No. 324 of 1985. By the impugned order it has been held that the respondent is entitled to received from the petitioner a sum of Rs. 7,326.30 towards the difference of wages for the period from 8th December, 1981 to 30th September, 1985. The petitioner was directed to pay to the respondent the said amount. At the admission stage, the operation of the impugned order was not stayed. Consequently, the petitioner has made the payment to the respondent No. 1. Thus, it would appear that the writ petition has become infructuous. However, the Counsel for the petitioner has stated that since similar claims are likely to be raised by other employees, it is nec...

Smt. Sudha Keshav Divekar Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Commission Bombay an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(2)BomCR22; 1997(3)MhLj529

ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the widow of Lt. Commander Keshav Nagesh Divekar, who was in employment with the respondent Oil and Natural Gas Company seeks to challenge the order passed by the Central Government Labour Court No. 2, Bombay on 15-6-92.2. Short facts necessary for consideration of the controversy advanced during the course of arguments by the petitioner are that Lt. Commander Keshav Nagesh Divekar ('the employee') retired from Indian Navy, and after his retirement he was employed by the respondent No. 1(Oil) and Natural Gas Commissioner (O.N.G.C.) somewhere in the year 1985 on adhoc basis as Chief Officer. 'Sagar-Samrat'. The employee was paid wages computed on daily basis. He made application under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D. Act') praying therein that he was entitled to regular pay scale of the 'Chief Officer' and which is paid by O.N.G.C. to similarly situated employees. According to him since the wages paid to him...

ichalkaranji Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Vilas Hanmant Alase and A ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(2)ALLMR148

1. The petitioner has filed the writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated August 19, 1987 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kolhapur in I.D.A. Application No. 324 of 1985. By the impugned order it has been held that the respondent is entitled to receive from the petitioner a sum of Rs. 7,326.30 towards the difference of wages for the period from December 8, 1981 to September 30, 1985. The petitioner was directed to pay to the respondent the said amount. At the admission stage, the operation of the impugned order was not stayed. Consequently, the petitioner has made the payment to the respondent No. 1. Thus, it would appear that the writ petition has become infructuous. However, the counsel for the petitioner has stated that since similar claims are likely to be raised by other employees, it is necessary to decide the writ pe...

Sudha Keshav Divekar Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Bombay Offsho ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1997(4)ALLMR117

ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the widow of Lt. Commander Keshav Nagesh Divekar, who was in employment with the Respondent Oil and Natural Gas Commission seeks to challenge the order passed by the Central Government Labour Court No. 2, Bombay on 15-5-1992. 2. Short facts necessary for consideration of the controversy advanced during the course of arguments by the Petitioner are that Lt. Commander Keshav Nagesh Divekar ('the employee') retired from Navy and after his retirement he was employed by the Respondent No. 1 Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) somewhere in the year 1985 on ad hoc basis as Chief Officer, 'Sagar - Samrat'. The employee was paid wages computed on daily basis. He made application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('I.D Act') praying therein that he was entitled to regular pay scale of the 'Chief Officer' and which is paid by ONGC to similarly situated employees. According to him since the wages paid to him were at l...

Killick Air Courier and Vs. Commr. of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT182Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The facts, so far as they are necessary for disposal of this appeal, which led to the passing of the order of the Commissioner impugned in the appeal are, these : The appellants M/s. Killick Air Couriers & Forwarders Ltd. is a courier which collects for delivery abroad and delivers in India parcels and packets from consignees. It is not in dispute that the appellant had contracted to deliver to consignees in India packets and parcels which were booked for carriage to India, from Singapore and Hongkong by M/s. Citi Links. The system of delivery of such packages as explained by the advocate for it, and has not contested by the departmental representative is as follows: The courier company abroad gives these goods to the onboard couriers, the person who actually carries the packets and parcels. The onboard couriers were employees of M/s. Patel Onboard Couriers (POBC) in this appeal. (We are not concerned with the onboard couriers of other courier companies for disposing of this ap...

Maulik Jasubhai Trust Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. We find it convenient to dispose of these two appeals of the assessee relating to the asst. yrs. 1986-87 and 1988-89, by this consolidated order. Rival contentions have been heard and records perused.2. The dispute involved in these appeals is relating to penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of Rs. 1,50,000 for the asst. yr. 1986-87 and Rs. 92,221 for the asst. yr. 1988-89. The relevant facts in this case are that the appellant is a private trust deriving income from rent and interest.During the course of assessment proceedings for the aforementioned assessment years, it was observed by the AO that assessee had reflected a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 and Rs. 3,07,500 for the asst. yrs. 1986-87 and 1988-89 respectively, as having received from number of parties as gifts. These amounts had either been received by cheques or by drafts.Assessee furnished confirmations from the donors. The AO required the assessee to produce the parties before him. Notices were issued to eight parties, out of which six p...

Smt. Kusum Pandurang Khilare Vs. Smt. Sushilabai Mahadeo Swami and Oth ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(1)BomCR271

ORDERA.V. Savant, J.1. Heard ail the learned Counsel.2. On a motion made by Shri Bhosale, name of respondent No. 3 deleted.3. Rule.4. Since the point involved in the petition is covered by the decision ot the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saraswati Devi v. Smt. Shanti Devi and others, : AIR1997SC347 and since out of the period of year, five months are already over, it has become necessary tor us to decide the matter expeditiously. Hence, by consent, rule made returnable forthwith and heard all the learned Counsel. The short controversy which arises for our consideration is that both the petitioner and the first respondent are women belonging to the Scheduled Caste. Whereas the petitioner has been elected as councillor from the ward reserved for Scheduled Caste women, the first respondent, though a Scheduled Caste woman, has been elected, from unreserved ward.5. The dispute relates to the election to the post of President of Indapur Municipal Council, in accordance with the provisions of the...

Rajshekhar Hanmant Patil Vs. Vijaylalita (According to Her) W/O Rajshe ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(2)BomCR349; 1998BomCR(Cri)360; II(1998)DMC436

ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J. 1. The challenge in this petition is revisional order passed dated 7-12-1995 in Civil Revision Application No. 152/94 on the file of Addl. Sessions Judge, Solapur whereby the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance to the respondent at the rate of 400/- p.m. The matter arises out of application filed by the respondent, the alleged wife of the petitioner, claiming maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Magistrate, before whom the application of the wife Smt. Vijaylalita Rajshekhar Patil came up for consideration, dismissed the application. The petitioner urged before the learned Magistrate that assuming there was a marriage between him and Vijaylalita Rajshekhar Patil, such a marriage is not valid in law in view of subsisting valid marriage of the petitioner with one Smt. Sadhana, while accepting this argument the learned Magistrate dismissed the application of the Vijaylalita. She filed the revisional before Sessio...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hardcastle and Waud Manufacturing Co. L ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [1998]233ITR732(Bom)

Dr. Mrs. Pratibha Upasani, J.1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, at the instance of the Revenue, has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the product manufactured by the assessee would not come within the ambit of the word 'paint' in the list of articles in entry 26 of the Eleventh Schedule and consequently holding that the assessee-company was entitled to investment allowance ?' 2. The reference pertains to the assessment year 1980-81. 3. The brief facts giving rise to this reference can be narrated as follows : The assessee-company installed new machinery worth Rs. 16,01,651 for the manufacture of a product, which is described as 'powder coating'. The commercial name of the said powder coating is 'Hawco Plast Powder Coating'. 4. The assessee-company claimed investment allowance under sec...